Instead of CEP decay..

[kaffis]

We've all seen people suggest CEP decay in order to do a few things, primarily:

Try to ensure that the people really dedicated to command have the best tools, and
Combat CR inflation, where, after years, everybody eventually gets CR5.

What if, instead of decaying CEP, there was simply no fixed values to achieve a CR?

Here's how I would do it: I'd brainstorm with all my developer buddies and come up with a "target" ratio of CR. For every 10,000 players *online*, 2,000 should be CR1 or higher, 1,200 should be CR2 and up, 600 should be at least CR3, no more than 100 should be CR4, and 20 should be CR5.

Or whatever. I'm not married to the numbers, and the system would allow for easy tweaking to strike a good balance.

Anyways, the idea is, once you've got these target ratios set up, the game looks at all the people online, and selects the 20 (per empire) with the highest CEP total and gives them CR5 access, the next 80 get CR4, etc.

Thoughts? Would this be better, or worse, than a CEP decay system? Discuss.

[brinkdadrink]

I like it. Would love to keep my OS but the game would greatly benefit with your system i think.

just to make sure, you mean those numbers (can be tweaked) of currently active online players. So no matter who is on there will be 20 CR5 at all time.

[DviddLeff]

Its a solution, but one that penalises new players to the game as they will never catch up with those who had been playing from day one.

CEP decay stops those that don't command from keeping the tools, in my overhaul I not only have CEP decay but I also have the following restrictions:

1. Only squad, platoon and company leaders can use their command tools.
2. Commanders have to not only earn CEP, but have to purchase it with certs; CR1, 2, 3 able to be earned with 3 points invested, and CR4 and 5 with a further

Point 1 is not effective on its own as anybody can be a squad leader with a squad of two, and people can just switch it around when someone needs to drop an OS, while point 2 is useless currently as everyone has way too many cert points even before they reach BR40 (I would remove BR21-40 entirely).

CEP decay is the best way I have seen suggested since 2003 of keeping the number of CR5s down; it forces those that want to command to actually do so and they certainly should not be doing so just for the big OS.

[basti]

Like it as well, but as leff already said: New player = you are screwed. Because of that, no practical use. :/

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by basti

Like it as well, but as leff already said: New player = you are screwed. Because of that, no practical use. :/

Yes, this is indeed the primary distinction vs. decay.

Decay favors recent playtime (in a command capacity, as measured by the game), floating rank thresholds favor overall playtime (in a command capacity).

While, yes, it does create more of an uphill climb for new players, the presumption is that the guy who plays for 3 years and then takes 3 months off has more experience than the guy who started playing 3 months ago, and that's reflected in who gets chosen as a higher ranked commander in the floating threshold system.

Eventually, enough original veterans take some time off, or decide they don't need to be leading squads, at least, that newer players dedicated to command get the experience edge on them.

In any case, the thing I think is most beneficial about the floating thresholds is that it prevents the CR5 chat spam and "too many cooks in the kitchen" syndrome that the game has arrived at. It prevents the "command structure" from getting top heavy.

If you're concerned that it becomes too difficult for new players to catch up, there's nothing to say that it couldn't be used *in conjunction* with a decay system. The fact that it doesn't have caps merely means that you have to make the decay scale so that higher XP levels decay at a faster rate. If you've got 100,000 CEP, you lose 1000 a day. If you've got 100 CEP, you lose 1 a day. Or whatever.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by kaffis

While, yes, it does create more of an uphill climb for new players, the presumption is that the guy who plays for 3 years and then takes 3 months off has more experience than the guy who started playing 3 months ago, and that's reflected in who gets chosen as a higher ranked commander in the floating threshold system.

He may have more experience, but no more right. We all pay the same money for the game. The CEP system itself is intended to ensure those players who have a voice have some experience(Also.. I just changed my mind and realize why CEP is a good idea, at least for communications, so ignore my previous comments to that effect). Once you get CR5, you at least know the name of everything, and locations, map quirks. You have enough knowledge to not be hopelessly inept.


I think.. We've been thinking of things a bit too simplistic. Or perhaps combining things that shouldn't be combined. It is essentially the difference between the empire strategy and squad tactics. Who does what, who gets what tools.

Who decides the squad tactics, of course, is simple. The squad leaders and platoon leaders. Those positions should simply come with the tools necessary to do the job, and its up to the individual to use those tools properly. Waypoints, map drawings, and any other tools that can be dreamed up to assist in herding your 9 cats around.

But who decides the empire strategy? This, I think, is where CEP belongs, and what its necessary for. We need people in charge who have experience, and some nub in charge of a squad likely won't have that experience. So, the CRs need to be organized in some fashion that can give direction to the masses.

But its clear to me now that this is where the mistake is, why most solutions feel wrong. We've been trying to marry two fundamentally different goals, running your squad and figuring out the global strategy of the empire. Squad and platoon leaders need their tools. They just do. But they don't need a voice on command chats deciding the next primary. And those people on the command chats do not need command tools, other than a specific mechanic used by them to formulate their strategies, or intel tools. Certainly not an OS.

[Timantium]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Its a solution, but one that penalises new players to the game as they will never catch up with those who had been playing from day one.

Also, nobody would ever give up squad lead if the CEP system was ever climbing like that.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I still question the need for CEP at all. Just make the tools part of being squad/platoon leader, like commanders in BF2.

But I'm all for limiting the tools to command position use only. They should be tools to help you command, not be an alternate form of advancement to help out your combat potential.

However, we have to be careful if you include things like OS in command abilities without having to pass a screen first. Currently, the screen is CEP rank.

I can imagine having a lot of fun dropping huge friendly OS with a spy account. All I would need was someone to accept a random squad invite.

[Rbstr]

I actually don't like the idea that CEP would go away. I do like limiting the tools use to only squad and platoon leaders.

[DviddLeff]

As I say that doesn't help; you can have a 6 man platoon with 3 squad leaders; that's still 50% of the population with CR5 toys potentially.

[Tikuto]

• CEP Degradation (inactivity decay)
  and
• CEP Fluctuation (direct gain & loss)

CEP could decay overtime of the player who is inactive. This acts as a sift like DviddLeff describes. CEP level could also be determined by other leader-role players through quick 'n' easy electronic Agreement and Disagreement Votes, and this I have described here.

This is how the most committed and respected commanders are identified and valued amongst others if there's no better way.

[Warborn]

Command abilities that consist of stuff like orbital strikes and EMPs are fairly stupid and I don't think they contribute to the game. They only encourage people to grind out CEP by forming useless, totally directionless squads. I also don't think that denying people effective organizational tools really does much of anything to enhance the game. I could see having Command Ranks and tying squad-specific abilities to it -- stuff that helps the squad in some way but does dick all for you solo -- but it's fairly pointless to make CR something that everyone grinds out so that they can have cosmetic rewards, EMP, and an OS.

[Aractain]

It really needs to be person in charge = person with command abilitys (note: EMP is not a command ability).

Once that person is no longer in command they don't have the OSes.

The best way to accomplish this I've see was just to have the squad leaders choose a commander (not really a vote, not setup in the same way more like a 'vote of confidence').

[Bags]

SOE just needs to reset everyone's CR to 0 every 3 - 4 years. It took 8 years and 3 server merges to get as bad as it is today.

[CutterJohn]

I still question the need for CEP at all. Just make the tools part of being squad/platoon leader, like commanders in BF2.

But I'm all for limiting the tools to command position use only. They should be tools to help you command, not be an alternate form of advancement to help out your combat potential.

[Aractain]

Without looking at the "gameplay" of the commander, for me the purpose of a command system covers several important things.

1: Direction. Telling people where to go through UI (on the map), what to do through waypoints, giving inncentives for certain things seamlessly without complication or obfustication.

2: Leadership. One person in command - bad or good. Solves people 'grinding' CR, OS spam, Chat spam while giving empire command a single focus.

3: Feel/Immersion. This is more based on indavidual players but the systems and the way they interact should make a random player want a good commander because they make a real difference and make the whole game feel better.